Gatling v. United States of America et al
Filing
53
ORDER denying Navajo Nation's 47 Motion for Leave to Intervene as Defendant. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 7/5/2016.(LMR)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Ruby Gatling,
Plaintiff,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-15-08070-PCT-SMM
United States of America, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
Pending before the court is the Navajo Nation’s (the “applicant”) Motion for
16
Leave to Intervene as Defendant as of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 24(a)(2).
17
(Doc. 47.) Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Id. Defendant United States of America,
18
who opposes the motion, has responded. (Doc. 50.) The Court has reviewed the briefing
19
and makes the following ruling.
20
I. BACKGROUND
21
This case was originally filed in April of 2015 based upon the Federal Torts Claim
22
Act 28 U.S.C. § 2674, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of
23
1975 25 U.S.C. § 450, et seq. “(ISDEAA), and the doctrine of Bivens v. Six Unknown
24
Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Doc. 1.) On August 24, 2015, Defendant United
25
States subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to
26
state a claim (Doc. 12). On January 13, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
27
Defendant United States motion to dismiss. (Doc. 23.) On April 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed an
28
amended complaint (Doc. 39.) On April 29, 2016, Defendant United States filed a motion
1
to dismiss the amended complaint (Doc. 45). On May 24, 2016, the Navajo Nation filed a
2
motion to intervene. (Doc. 47.) On July 1, 2016, the Court granted Defendant United
3
States’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. (Doc. 52.)
4
Remaining in the case are 5 claims against the United States. They are: (1) False
5
Imprisonment for the actions of Yazzie; (2) Negligent Supervision for the alleged False
6
Imprisonment committed by Yazzie; (3) Negligent Supervision for the failure of the
7
Individual Defendants to protect Plaintiff from unreasonable uses of force by other
8
Individual Defendants; (4) Negligent Supervision for the negligence of Individual
9
Defendants in leaving Plaintiff in solitary confinement when she was in need of
10
immediate medical attention; and (5) Negligent Supervision for the failure of Individual
11
Defendants to administer aid to Plaintiff when her injuries had been directly caused by
12
the Individual Defendants. (Id.)
13
The Navajo Nation and the United States are parties to a 638 contract under the
14
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. (See Docs. 23; 52 (discussing
15
the relationship between United States and Indian tribes under these contracts)).
16
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
17
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) states:
18
On a timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene
who…claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the
subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a
practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest,
unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2). Intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) requires satisfaction of a
four-part test: (1) the applicant must file a timely motion; (2) the applicant must have
“significantly protectable” interest related to the subject matter of the action; (3) the
disposition of the action may practically impair or impede the applicant’s ability to
protect that interest; and (4) the interest must not be adequately represented by the
existing parties in the lawsuit. Wilderness Soc. V. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177
(9th Cir. 2011). The party seeking to intervene bears the burden of showing all four
requirements for intervention have been met. United States v. City of Los Angeles, Cal.,
-2-
1
288 F.3d 391, 397 (9th Cir. 2001).
2
Rule 24(a) is construed “liberally in favor of proposed intervenor” with the court
3
taking into account practical considerations. Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg,
4
268 F.3d 810, 818 (9th Cir. 2001). When ruling on a motion to intervene as a matter of
5
right, the court accepts all of the applicant’s non-conclusory allegations as true. Id. at
6
819.
7
III. DISCUSSION
8
A. Intervention as of Right
9
Timeliness
10
This court evaluates three factors to determine whether a motion to intervene is
11
timely: “(1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the
12
prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and length of the delay.” United States
13
ex rel. McGough v. Covington Technologies Co., 967 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir.1992)
14
(quotations omitted). Delay is measured from the date the proposed intervenor should
15
have been aware that its interests would no longer be protected adequately by the parties,
16
not the date it learned of the litigation. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of San
17
Francisco, 934 F.2d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.1991). Although the length of the delay is not
18
determinative, any substantial lapse of time weighs heavily against intervention. Id. If the
19
court finds that the motion to intervene was not timely, it need not reach any of the
20
remaining elements of Rule 24. United States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 588 (9th
21
Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1250, 111 S.Ct. 2889, 115 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1991).
22
Applicant seeks to intervene a full twelve months after this action was
23
commenced. There has been a motion to dismiss, an amended complaint, a renewed
24
motion to dismiss parts of the amended complaint, and a granting of the renewed motion
25
to dismiss.
26
Parties have been under the impression that the applicant, Navajo Nation, has
27
purposefully preserved sovereign immunity in relation to this case. If the applicant were
28
to be let in, many jurisdictional and immunity issues would arise, and there would be a
-3-
1
great delay in discovery as well as a distinct change in how both parties would approach
2
the case.
3
Applicant has not provided a reason for the delay. When the Court granted the
4
first motion to dismiss in January of 2016, the Individual Defendants were dismissed
5
from the action. This indicates that the Navajo Nation had the same reason to intervene
6
then, but delayed until now.
7
Defendant United States did not oppose the motion to intervene based on the
8
timeliness factor. However, the Court nonetheless finds that the Navajo Nation’s Motion
9
to Intervene is untimely based on the late stage of the proceeding, the significant
10
prejudice to the other parties, and the lack of reason for the delay.
11
Significantly Protectable Interest
12
To demonstrate a significantly protectable interest, the intervenor must establish
13
that (1) its interest is protected under some law and (2) there is a relationship between
14
that legally protected interest and the plaintiff’s claims. Sierra Club v. U.S. E.P.A., 995
15
F.2d 1478, 1484 (9th Cir. 1993) abrogated on other grounds, Wilderness Soc. V. U.S.
16
Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011). By allowing a party with a practical interest
17
to intervene, courts prevent or simplify future litigation that otherwise might occur. See
18
Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 66 F.3d 1489, 1493 (9th Cir. 1995).
19
“[A] party has a sufficient interest for intervention purposes if it will suffer a practical
20
impairment of its interests as a result of the pending litigation.” California ex rel. Lockyer
21
v. United States, 450 F.3d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 2006). A sufficient protectable interest in an
22
action for purposes of intervention is a “practical, threshold inquiry.” City of Los
23
Angeles, 288 F.3d at 398.
24
The Navajo Nation argues that it has an interest in the United States defending all
25
of Plaintiff’s claims. Applicant argues that their interest is protected under the relevant
26
638 contract and that the United States is not following through on their contractual
27
obligations. (Doc. 47 at 3.) Applicant seeks to intervene to uphold these alleged
28
contractual obligations. The Court finds that the United States did not breach the contract
-4-
1
because the contract contemplated who the United States must defend when she or he
2
commits an intentional tort. The Court previously found that an SLEC was required in
3
order for the United States to defend those intentional tort actions by a law enforcement
4
officer. (Doc 52.) Section 2680(h) of the FTCA states:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Any claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest,
malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation,
deceit, or interference with contract rights: Provided, That, with regard to
acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers of the United
States Government, the provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of
this title shall apply to any claim arising, on or after the date of the
enactment of this proviso, out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false
arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution. For the purpose of this
subsection, “investigative or law enforcement officer” means any officer of
the United States who is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize
evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law.
12
13
14
15
16
28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). (emphasis added).
“The Deputation Agreement Between Office of Justice Services and the Navajo
Nation” indicates that the parties did consider clarifying the confusion about which
officers should be treated as “federal” law enforcement officers:
24
The parties further expressly recognize the manifest intent of the Indian
Law Enforcement Reform Act to eliminate the uncertainties that previously
resulted in the reluctance of various law enforcement agencies to provide
services in Indian country for fear of being subjected to tort and civil rights
suits as a consequence of the enforcement of carrying out in Indian country
of certain federal law. To eliminate such concerns, pursuant to the authority
granted by 25 U.S.C. § 2804(a) and (f), a Tribal Law Enforcement Officer
who is deputized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Special Law Enforcement
Commission will be deemed an employee of Department of Interior for
purposes of the Federal Torts Claim Act while enforcing or carrying out
laws of the United States covered by this deputation agreement, to the
extent outlined in this agreement.
25
(Doc. 45-2 at 32.) (emphasis added). An SLEC gives the deputized Tribal Law
26
Enforcement Officer the power to enforce “all Federal laws applicable within Indian
27
country . . . .” (Doc. 45-2 at 34.) Further, in characterizing officers holding SLECs, the
28
relevant contract indicates: “Officers holding SLECs are treated as BIA police officers
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-5-
1
for enforcing Federal Laws.” (Doc. 45-2 at 36.) Indeed, under the section in the contract,
2
“Federal Liability for SLEC Holders” it states: “The SLEC grants the holder specific
3
Federal Authority and responsibility, and as a result places a high level of liability risk on
4
the U.S. government.” (Doc. 45-2 at 48.)
5
The Court granted Defendant United States’ motion to dismiss the claims for and
6
arising out of the intentional torts allegedly committed by Defendants Ashley, Williams,
7
and Greyeyes because it found that those officers did not have SLECs and therefore, were
8
not federal law enforcement officers subject to the intentional tort exception of the
9
FTCA. (Doc. 45.) Defendant Yazzie did have an SLEC, and accordingly, the United
10
States will defend the claims for and arising out of his alleged intentional tort.
11
Based on this, the Court finds that the United States is not foregoing an obligation
12
under the relevant 638 contract because they are not required to defend individual
13
defendants without an SLEC that have committed an intentional tort. In conclusion, the
14
Court finds no interest that is protected by law and therefore no impaired ability to
15
protect that interest.
16
Inadequate Representation by the United States
17
In determining whether an applicant’s interests are adequately represented, the
18
Court must consider (1) “whether the interest of a present party is such that it will
19
undoubtedly make all intervenor’s arguments,” (2) “whether the present party is capable
20
and willing to make such arguments,” and (3) “whether the intervenor would offer any
21
necessary elements to the proceedings that other parties would neglect.” State of Cal. v.
22
Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 792 F.2d 775, 778 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).
23
This Motion to Intervene fails on factors 1 and 2. Furthermore, the 638 contract in
24
question is governed by the Contract Disputes Act. See 25 U.S.C. 450m-1. The ISDEAA
25
mandates that the CDA governs disputes between tribes and the United States over 638
26
contracts. Id. The CDA specifically provides that the tribe file an administrative claim
27
and then file an action in the federal court of claims or federal district court. Id. at (a),(d).
28
The Navajo Nation is able to adequately represent their claims through this method, and
-6-
1
therefore it is not necessary that they intervene as a Defendant in this action.
2
B. Permissive Intervention
3
Permissive intervention is available to “anyone…who has a claim or defense that
4
shares with the main action a common question of law or fact” when the intervention will
5
not “unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.”
6
Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b). Whether to permit intervention in such circumstances is within the
7
Court’s discretion. Id. Here, the applicant is not likely to present arguments that respond
8
and relate directly to Plaintiff’s lawsuit. Rather they are issues relating to applicant’s
9
contract with the United States. Thus, the Court will not allow the applicant to
10
permissively intervene pursuant to Rule 24(b).
11
IV. CONCLUSION
12
Accordingly,
13
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING the Navajo Nation’s Motion for Leave
14
15
to Intervene as Defendant (Doc. 47.)
Dated this 5th day of July, 2016.
16
17
18
Honorable Stephen M. McNamee
Senior United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?